SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to Semi-Auto and Magazine Ban

By David Codrea

Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has no interest in being forced to accept the truth, finding the path of least resistance has been to hide and evade.
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)- Finally showing its hand on a case that’s been relisted time and again over the past several weeks, the Supreme Court today announced it will not hear Friedman v Highland Park, a challenge to a Chicago suburb’s ordinance against the possession, sale and purchase of politically incorrect semiautomatic firearms and standard capacity magazines.

Per the High Court docket:

Petition DENIED JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)

“Because the brief order denying review of the ordinance contained no explanation, there is no way to know why most of the Justices chose not to grant review.,” Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog observed. “It did not seem to be a response to recent mass shootings, because the Court has been studying the case since early in October…”

“Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case,” Justice Thomas explained in his dissent (scroll to page 12 of the linked order list document) ““The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions … There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”

What this means is places that do so relegate it continue to be free to ignore the clear proscriptions of the Second Amendment and to punish Americans who refuse to comply.

This will also embolden other states and municipalities to maintain and/or enact similar bans, confident that government avenues for redress will remain blocked.

What it also means is the perception any of the justices who joined with the majority may be “conservative” is illusory.  The abdication of principle by Chief Justice John Roberts was telling, although the contorted “logic” he pulled out from under his robe to give cover to Obamacare should have been all anyone needed to divine the man’s true loyalties. Likewise, Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy proved to be a big government man, and considering his benefactor's gun sentiments, again, that's hardly a surprise.  Also revealing was the absence of Samuel Alito from the dissent, particularly after his nomination was opposed by anti-gunners calling him “Machine Gun Sammy” for his legal opinion that banning machine guns is the purview of the states, not of Congress.

Highland Park and other places leave the field with their bans intact. It’s now up to them to enforce their edicts, and up to gun owners to decide if they will surrender and obey, or defy and refuse to comply.

In truth, the outcome does not surprise me. As I have maintained for years:

SCOTUS, of course, has been ducking this issue for a long time. They'll probably take the path of least resistance again, and refuse to hear such cases. However, if they accept either Seegars or Parker, I believe the court will not dare say there is no individual rkba. But if they find there is one, it will be so heavily burdened with “reasonable restrictions” as to ensure the status quo. They'll never admit the truth unless someone, that would be us, has enough power to compel them.

That's because any honest reading of founding intent and prior precedent would have no choice but to concede the “in common use at the time” qualifier cited in DC v Heller in turn relied on U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 that found a short-barrel shotgun could not be determined protected under the Second Amendment because the court had no evidence its possession had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

That’s the key point being ducked. The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia did not assemble on the green bearing clubs and spears. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat.

That's the inheritance those who would rule don't want the people even finding out about, let alone claiming.

Also see: No Decision Yet as Supreme Court Relists Gun Ban Case

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and also posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

17
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
17 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
16 Comment authors
JanekoldshooterRonGregChicagoGuy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Janek
Guest
Janek

SCOTUS rulings on the nation’s gun laws, like their rulings on ‘Universal’ health care are a pain in the SCROTUS.

oldshooter
Guest
oldshooter

There is actually no need for the SCOTUS to re-hear this type of case. In the 1939 “Miller” case, the SCOTUS clearly ruled that the 2nd. Amendment specifically protects firearms that are particularly applicable to military use, or are in common use by the world’s military forces. There is no possible question that so-called “Assault Weapons,” semi-automatic rifles and pistols, and “high capacity” magazines, are currently the standard issue weapons to US, as well as all other nation’s, military forces around the world. Therefore, the 2nd. Amendment MUST protect those types of firearms. If the 2nd. Amendment protects possession and… Read more »

Ron
Guest
Ron

Just another group of American Government who failed 5th Grade American History. In Vuet Nam Combat I learned all bout “body counts”! So lets get down to business, just what is an American Citizen’s life worth? 1:1? 100:1? A 1000:1? My hope is that when they come to take my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AWAY, tgat Obama, Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the Dummiecrats come to take it. Like I told a bunch of Black Thugs who had me cornered in a parking lot one night, there are 14 of you, I have 13 shots, who wants to… Read more »

Greg
Guest
Greg

Nine people who do not have a clue what their oath of office was about. They are all stupid enough to think it
is about their feelings, or opinion.

ChicagoGuy
Guest
ChicagoGuy

Another loser from Richard Pearson of ISRA & Donald “Todd” Vandermyde, NRA contract lobbyist for IL. The day Dr. Friedman trusted Pearson or Vandermyde is the day he lost his case, and now every gun owner in the United States has lost everything. Pearson is the “man” who used and betrayed Otis McDonald, and Vandermyde is the rat who put Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Rep. Brandon Phelps “good” “NRA backed” HB183 carry bill, so police criminals like Jon Burge and police impersonators like John Gacy can execute armed citizens at will. What a team we have in… Read more »

lowell
Guest
lowell

The worse they make it the more likely that original intent will go from hypothetical argument to outright necessity.

Hipshot Percussion
Guest
Hipshot Percussion

The next Presidential election is the most important in our Nations history. We can continue down the path of destruction set forth by this Idiot King of ours by electing Hillary or Barry, or we can elect someone from the Republican side. Keep in mind, the next President will more than likely install two Supreme Court Justices over an 8 year term. Do you want them to be Constitutionalist’s or more Ginsburgs?

One more Democrat in the Oval Office and it’s all over but the crying.

Robert
Guest
Robert

Excellent and well-stated article!

Heyoka
Guest
Heyoka

Molon’Labe Freedom’s Vanguard: Revisit Miller… The Court said that “absent a showing that a sawed off shotgun is a militia type weapon”… Miller did not show for the hearing, he was dead the other defendant could not be found. the attorney didn’t “Show” the short barreled shotgun was a militia type weapon. Of course we know the militia used al sorts of weapons. The British even adopted a civilian application if the long gun called a rifle because of a rifled barrel, See historical reference on Ferguson’s Rifles. Miller has been misapplied ever since. There was no restriction until the… Read more »

Infidel7.62
Guest
Infidel7.62

They should be called SCROTUS, not SCOTUS, as they are just an empty sack without the stones to do what is right.

Galaxie_Man
Guest
Galaxie_Man

I used to worry about pending gun control legislation and court decisions. NO MORE! I was made a felon by the stroke of a pen in 1994, and my position was reaffirmed in 2013. There are many of us across the nation that have said, “ENOUGH!!!” and are participating in the Armed Civil Disobedience of Non-Compliance. Rates of non-compliance are 85% in CT and 95% in NY. State officials have blustered that they would “aggressively enforce” the new laws, and to date have only prosecuted a handful of criminals. They DARE NOT do what it is they would have to… Read more »

D. Murphy
Guest
D. Murphy

No ones life, liberty, property or freedom is secure while democrats are in power!

Eric
Guest
Eric

SCOTUS is supposed to interpet the Constitution as written not as some Democrat nanny. They need to step down if they can not do their JOB.

Molon'Labe Freedom's Vanguard
Guest
Molon'Labe Freedom's Vanguard

A brief history of the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court December 22, 2012 By Mitch F. 3 Comments – Congress is again considering an “assault weapons ban.” The call is for compromise, reasonable restrictions and common sense gun control. I could go on a lengthy diatribe that was comprehensive in nature regarding the proposed legislation, but others have already responded thoroughly. Owing to the nature of this blog, I will instead offer a perspective taken from previous court opinions that may be relevant to the proposal. – Our journey begins with the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The… Read more »

Molon'Labe Freedom's Vanguard
Guest
Molon'Labe Freedom's Vanguard

“The presidency – by which I mean the executive state – is the sum of total American tyranny. The other branches of government, including the presidentially appointed Supreme Court, are mere adjuncts. The presidency insists on complete devotion and humble submission to its dictates, even while its steals the products of our labor and drives us into economic ruin. It centralizes all power unto itself, and crowds out all competing centers of power in society, including the church, the family, the business, the charity, and the community.”
-Lew Rockwell, president of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute

Woody W Woodward
Guest
Woody W Woodward

The SCOTUS has decided to stick its collective head into the sand, ignore the question and it’ll just go away? “Infringe”??????? They’re trying to hang a tail on the end of a period and call it a comma. I call BS
[W3]

George
Guest
George

I wouldn’t trust any gun related issues to the SCOTUS as they are ruling uncharacteristic as of late; almost as if something is being held over their heads… so this is a good thing..